Chdmann's page

Chdmann wrote:

Think about it: Pharasma saw that Rovagug would eventually break free:
Aroden's absence allowed Cayden Cailean, Iomedae, Norgorber to attain godhood. How many more were able to ascend in the time between Pathfinder and Starfinder?

There's a lot that was wrong with this comment, but this bit is the easiest to refute: all three ascended while Aroden was alive and an active god.

How so? Without Aroden, there is no 'god emperor of Men' who's worship would eclipse the other gods. Milani (as well as other ex-Arodenite Saints) also showed how easy it was to become a god (without the Starstone) after his death as well.

Also what of the other wannabe gods coming through/taking the Starstone Trials and succeeding? It has happened 3 times already, why not again? In the time between PF and Starfinder it isn't hard to Imagine more ascending to Godhood.

The Starstone would also be the Power-source of the Station. If you look at the concept art, it looks like Taldor and maybe Cheliax were raised in a bubble of magic, then an entire station was built around it.

What little we know of the setting lends itself to a lot of speculation and generates a lot of questions.

Here's one that occurred to me:

If Golarion is missing and Absalom Station has taken it's place but the rest of the solar system is present, where do the aiudara on Castrovel go to now?

What other questions do you folks have? Please post them here so we can wrestle with them together!

What if Aroden (whether an ascended AI who modeled himself on, or the real Aroden himself doesn't matter/up for debate) made his presence known when Rovagug broke free from imprisonment in Golarion? What if Aroden knew he needed the help of other gods to raise Absalom into a Spaceship?

Think about it: Pharasma saw that Rovagug would eventually break free:
Aroden's absence allowed Cayden Cailean, Iomedae, Norgorber to attain godhood. How many more were able to ascend in the time between Pathfinder and Starfinder?

The Old Gods were fighting Rovagog, Aroden, Cayden Cailean, Iomedae and the other Star-stone gods got as many mortals as they could to Absalom, and launched it as a self-sustaining vessel: Absalom station. The Station was taken as far away as possible from Golarion, to keep the mortals safe.

Whether the Old Gods are dead, or out of range of their followers is unknown... but the clerics of the old gods were depowered.

After that, we have 3 options:

1) Aroden goes full "Humanity FY Master Race", and the other races launched "The Exodus of Absalom" to colonize the new systems rather then deal with his favoritism BS.

2) It's been a while since that battle, and the descendants of Golarion have grown in strength and technology where they believe they can retake their homeworld... If they knew where it is. The gods in their haste to evacuate from Absalom made a series of blind jumps away and have no Idea where Golarion is. (Think Battlestar Galactica meets Star Trek: Voyager.)

3) The nearby systems have been, or are being colonized... Absalom Station now serves as a hub for trading and adventure. (Star-Trek: Deep Space 9 meets Stargate: Atlantis)

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Just to clarify (and maybe you already know this; if so, sorry for stating the obvious!) - the (in-game) Pathfinder Society as an organization probably does allow kobolds - in fact, they probably allow anyone who can pass the basic training. If you're looking for lore that supports kobold Pathfinders for a home game, there is no problem.

Yup,yip,yup!

GM Lamplighter wrote:

The Pathfinder Society Organized Play Campaign puts limits on what players can play, because certain options are disruptive* at the table. As one example, evil characters encourage people to fight among the party instead of working together. As another, kobold have a racial enmity with gnomes, a core (and common) race. So, kobold Pathfinders might exist, but for the sake of the Organized Play environment, players don't get to be one.)

Dis here is Pun-pun problem; Kobolds no Evil, Kobolds defending our den from surface and gnome invasion, like surface dweller defend there dens! We easily out-numba Baldy gnomes 300 times, we even out-numba Rat-tails, yet we no get to be called Common Race?

Enough out of you Punpun! Your name is too distracting, along with your lipless speech Paterns!*

I would argue that there is greater Enmity between Elves and Dwarves, or Ratfolk and Kitsune, yet they are still playable in Organized Play.

As "Paul Jackson" has said, it isn't unheared of In Character, so why not let us play kobolds!

*There is actually a scientific reason both Jar-Jar and Pun-pun speak like they are inhaling every few syllibles: They are. To Mimic the resonance larger cheek hollows give (Required for non-reptilian spoken language,) the palatal valve partially opens and closes, just like a crocadile's. While Jar-Jar and Crocadiles use theirs to hold their breath underwater, Kobolds have it as a evolutionary leftover from their draconic ancestors (Who close their palatal valve to prevent respiritory damage from breath weapons, as well as to speak common.)

Hey all, just got a letter done from my Homebrew Campaign Character, A Kobold (Bushwhacker) named Pun-pun.

If the Kobold posted it in the wrong area, please move it: He only got it here because of a Nat 20 on his "Use Technological Device" Check.
_______________________________________________________________________

Deer Paf-finda Societee

I isa Pun-pun Kobold that cum 2 Societee 4 work (earn shinies, Lern Serf-vice Kulcha).

Pun-pun cry cuz Pun-pun told he'd hafta lie on application shiet, say tat I iz a smelly-feet Halfling who was raised by Kobolds! Mesa trigger'd by memories of Halflings killing Kobold pups 4 Sport!

I thort the Paf-findas were abuv dis Speciest *redacted*! Civilizatun droves mesa and kin from our denz, stealz the land above us b4 sending your lot down to raid, lute, and pillage our entire his-story!

Wesa Kobolds, as dragon-kin know that "Mite make Rite" and "can't beet'em, join'em", hence wesa wanta join ya!

Pun-pun may be one of the few who can speeks comun, but wesa lern others, work 4 shiniez...

Okey-Dey?

(Pun-Pun's hand print)

________________________________________________________________________

Hi all, I'm a noob to PFS, despite playing PF regularly as a PC.

Anyway, apparently I have to have a 'boon' to play either of my 3 favorite races.

How do I gets the boon to play either of the 3?

Also I might go with the old age thing...

I mean sure it's got human smarts.
But the poor thing also has the lifespan of a typical domestic feline. And he'd be 16 by now.
That's two years over the normal lifespan of a domestic tom-cat. So he's pushing it, I just might have her wake up, and find him curled up next to her, cold and dead.

I might just have my improved familiar be (until I am able to find a new one) the ghost of her old one.

Or you have that cat stolen, and over a course of a few adventures, have pieces sent to/left behind for the PC!

Before the Ooze-mage classes, my Character had a dog as a familiar.

With the Ooze-mage advancement, unlocking the new upgraded Familiar, I had the B$~!@ turned into an Elven Woman (divine reward from some deity, can't remember the specifics) who became a cohort and later my character's wife.

I had my mini Gelatinous cube 'Split'!

...

...

Sorry, that was terrible, but my mini Gelatinous Cube died in a Moment of Awesome so I could upgrade to a Dwarf Gelatinous Cube.

My PC (use the D20 Ooze-lord ogl rules adapted by GM) was ko'ed, Leaking/bleeding ooze everywhere, and the Ring of Disintegration was about to blow.

The Cube oozed/slithered over my (pc's) body, engulfed the ring, then oozed/slithered over the ledge and fell the lava as the ring blew up!

Atarlost,

I chose my words carefully. I said in the "In the right circumstance they can do a particular job as well as anyone else."

So yes in real life that all makes sense.

The problem seems to be more along the point of: This character being in an adventuring party without training his body and mind first is illogical, and therefore breaks Immersion.

I'm a cripple IRL (paraplegic actually, but for game purposes, crippled) and I for one, wouldn't go journeying until I could handle myself.

He is a liability, and if the starting party is being recruited from the Pub/Tavern, there would be far better candidates to hire.

How do you discourage a player who adamantly wants to play a monk/oracle with a Vow of Silence and the Deaf and Clouded Vision curses?

If you were to let them play it, have that character have to pay to hire a helper/cohort from his share of spoils.

Or, have the blind and deaf monk/oracle as a back-up (Maybe a follower who the main character couldn't abandon).

The character can come in at a later time, maybe explained as 'he was at camp,receiving training from ascended masters.'

It's legal to own saves in Katapesh, and I think it's the way you treat them that determines how they would behave to the owner and party. Plus I also enjoy some interesting role-play since we have a Paladin in the group that hates the ideal of slavery. I feel that character builds that are outside-of-the-box creates a unique role-playing experience and interaction between everyone.

All good suggestions, thanks! Anyone else? :) I'm trying to get good feel from other players as well as GM's to help my argument.

True, but what if she (slave) has chosen to remain a 'slave' for Taxation purposes?

In my group's 'world', we allow slaves, but the laws that protect a slaves welfare, if broken, put the slaver on the market if broken.

Yeah, you are going to keep getting the "are you evil" and "harumph, I wouldn't allow it my game" responses. Replace "slave" with "indentured servant", and may be the responses will turn down.

Just had an idea, call her your 'Fiance' and then all the slave things can be hand-waived as "Wife on the road"

Get the Cleric to do a 'Marriage Ceremony' as you see appropriate, and maybe get the GM to do an encounter where the ceremony is raided by a jealous lord who wants her hand as well...

Have the Party storm his castle, and if the Lord refuses his claim of Ownership, slay him.

Definitely evil. Much of Pathfinders morality is assumed on what we as a modern western audience find good or evil.

If you are one of those people who thinks that playing modern western values in a a medieval/renaissance time-period is absurd, how does that work out for you with, say, womens rights? Do you have female players?

We play with renaissance values.

If fact, the women players actually were the one who wanted that.
Women have always had rights, the 'feminist' movement forced them to work. We have a Female Elven Ranger (Elven Princess) who was dis-owned by her family because she refused to marry the 12yo human prince.

In the game world, no leniency is shown for serious crimes,

The Nun/Cleric was dis-owned by her order because her Chasity was forcibly broken by an Orc (hence why she was at the Inn when the party-forming dragon attack happened.)

It isn't a major plot-line but the inn keepers keep on asking about 'Who's wife be yer?' and upgrading the beds to a Double; "Oh? U running away to elope or summat?"

@mei, I was thinking of something like that, but not as complicated. My idea was to set it up so if they didn't walk up stairs backwards, it would warp them back to the start of the floor (as if they had walked up the initial stairs).

Oozes seem to be a favorite in this thread. I'll have to look up them to see if they fit.

Dude, Oozes are amorphous, of course they'll fit!

Still, I'd chose to nerf them a bit for a 'trickster scenario'.

Oozes are usually a great enemy to throw at your PC's normally, especially with paladin's asking if it was right to kill a kobold for scavenging for food at the granary.

They make a satisfying squelch as you cleave them apart or whack them with a club. They also make glass-smashing noise when you freeze them (raw alchemy reagent perhaps?), and make an impressive 'Woof' when you set them alight. (Actually had a party down to 1 torch, so the alchemist grabbed a bit of the ooze, put it on the end of bones and they used them to light their way.)

For a fellow DM, They are also cheap and easy to make! (link on how is http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t51015.html)

Oozes, lots of oozes.

a sewer/runoff with a grate over it, so the slimes can come up from below.

I used that once on a female Paladin PC, ooze slimed into her Armour, so she had to remove her plate-mail in order to get the little bugger out.

It was harmless in itself, but distracting to feel it move under there!

Also, it's extremely rare to judge characters in an RPG by standards of the past, so I would not see the relevance of past societies which broke the pattern. Most ancient societies did not consider rape a serious crime. Most ancient societies had little to no qualms about sexism, racism, slavery, grotesque abuses of powers by despots, human sacrifice, the extermination or ransom of prisoners of war, or any other number of atrocities. Medieval Europeans had lovely entertainments such as headbutting cats to death, raping people put in the stocks, and so on. A historical knight was a lot more like an Afghan warlord than an idealistic crusader.

I'd allow the eating of summoned creatures. As messed up as it sounds, I'd allow it, but the character must a) immobilize/paralyze it without killing it, then b) separate the piece they want to eat.

The group I run actually uses 'Historic Standards', particularly 'Social and Natural Selection/Darwinism' (If it can't/won't effectively fight you, then it can be exploited!)

Still, the group finds it easier to do the following:
Get and kill an enemy, (Orc/Goblin/livestock/wolf/kobold/bugbear/ex-GF or whatever you want to eat), strip all the meat from it's bones.
Then they "Cast Restore Corpse" (1st level spell) to turn the skeleton into a corpse with (rotting) meat on it. Remove rotting flesh.
cast Purify Food & Drink" on the flesh, rinse, repeat.

One stop, the party actually used the process on the Baron no less, after the Baron said that the party could "take what you need"...

Then they also Took his daughter, and she has been with the party ever since. (Crazy B**** fell for our noble-born rogue, and so wanted to avoid an arranged marriage)

Axebeard wrote:

Chdmann wrote:

He sounds to methodical to be Chaotic

Chaotic is law vs. chaos, not "capable of planning vs. crazy and/or stupid". I think that methodical, intelligent, and planning make for a much scarier chaotic evil than some guy who runs around stabbing everyone he meets.

Glad you see what I was trying to explain. Sometimes it is that freedom to not be bound by the law that makes a methodical person truely scary. If a character is bound by the law they can eventually use their methodical characteristics to get something done, but all their effort has been trying to justifiy the action and not actually the execution.

Example: A Government decides that all forms of Necromancy should be banned, while Resurrection/Reincarnation are seen gifts from the deities that no warrior should be denied. My Antipaladin sees that Necromancy is a valid form of raising the dead (as long as they are willing and allowed to be intelligent creatures). He deides that he shall pay the council a little visit disguised as a royal guard. After killing everyone in the room, he decides to raise the councilmen as skeletons. The councilmen tell the city how they have seen the errors of there ways and everyone should be converted. My character laughs as he sees the citizens begin to fight the government in fear of their fates. Eventually the citizen will be forced to make peace with the undead legions now constructed by the Antipaladin or die holding onto their belief (my character would make sure all the officers were sentient to prove that Undead can be a willing choice).

What he did was Rational but Cruel. He fought a oppresive law that he felt was flawed/misguided which makes him Chaotic. He also used a more self-indulging and destructive matter to prove his point which makes him Evil.

That would indeed be chaotic, but Evil, not really, seems more neutral IMO, He 'killed them' and 'resurrected' them... He gave them Immortality for god sake! Made them Immune to hunger, pain, suffering, while letting them retain their free-will!

That man is a mo-fo saint as far as I'm concerned! (Unorthadox, yes, but he did it selflessly so the God's can continue to offer their Divine Gifts.

An inquisitor with judgments and bane to go along with smiting would be insanely scary, and thematically close to anti paladin, and your described backstory and motivations.

That'd be even better then my Idea mate!

I should note that my Fiendish servent is an Erinyes. At first my chaotic character might not seem like a good fit, but my character's goal to to "purify" the masses of their false sense of virtues and ideals. He kills only those he believes to be hypocritical or ignorant. He used to be a Paladin, but turned once he learned how much corruption and false causes were in a "Lawful Good" society. An Erinyes, much like my Paladin, sees right through that and only sees what is Lawful from an outsider's perspective (its true nature).

So are you talking about a Paladin with PTSD?

He sounds to methodical to be Chaotic, Too Righteous to be Evil so Anti-Paladin doesn't seem to work.

I would say that your rationale fits more a Paladin. A paladin is bound both to do good and to uphold just law, though if forced into a choice a paladin will likely choose the cause of good.

Maybe play him as the victim of "political assassination". After all, people may claim one alignment, and be another.

Maybe the Order expelled him/her for irreconcilable differences on the opinion of the morality of certain patrons?

That's pretty much reduces down to an "Ends Justify the Means" argument. On the other hand, I don't see Good/Evil as a relative summ quotient. I think that there are means whch irretreivably taint whatever ends that are sought, no matter how noble. I take Owlman's positon as opposed to Oxymandias. That there are acts which are irretreiably wrong, unconscionably evil no matter how much good you stack against them.

So a Character is irredeemable is someone crosses your 'Line in the Sand'? Where do you draw that line? For example, those Orc Warriors that you kill are another's Husband, Father, or Brother. How is killing them any less evil then killing the Tyranical Lord in his castle?

NPC's will never forget any wrongs done against them, however if the greater good is achieved, then their alignment should reflect that.

Ultimately I just think players who want to apply torture in game need to have a long hard look at themselves. There are so many enjoyable avenues to take playing this game that there is no need to go anywhere near torture. If I were to DM a group that even considered it I'd make it pretty clear that it's not on. Plus I never have and never will play in a group that wants to play evil characters so I would imagine the torture issue will continue to not come up.

Fair enough Gallo, that's how you like your games of PF.

The Group I'm playing enjoys more 'shades of grey', (We have my Ooze-Master/Ooze-Bound Mage (was half-orc), a famous Dwarf bard, a Elven 'Working Girl' turned Assassin, and a Paranoid Paladin.)

That's the brilliance of pf: We can play the game we want based on the rules. May not be your bowl of Black Pudding, but our group enjoys systematically killing regional Lords and stealing their fortunes/starting rebellion against the Holy Empire by Uniting Dwarf, Elf, Goblin and Humans/(think like the show 'Revenge' in high fantasy.)

So I guess for someone like you there is no middle ground. Either you burn people alive or you barf rainbows? I can understand executing an opponent, or just fighting to the death, but there is no way you are ever going to rationalize burning someone to death is not an evil act.

Lay off the hyperbole man, it's skewing your judgement.

Nice Strawman!

I see any killing as an evil act IMHO, but as long as the good done adds up to more then the 'evil' done to bring the good.

Still, YMMV.

Edit: Actually I think we're done with the topic regardless, or at least I am. I've learned what I meaningfully can and have no further questions. Thank you again for your insight. I remain... rather unnerved by it and think it remains indefensible, but at least you've been able to reasonably articulate what you think someone stands to gain from the practice. That's more than most of the 'Bauer wannabes' I come across can do.

Cheers, I never said it was for everyone, but I see it as the difference between a thug and a surgeon using a knife/scalpel on someone. Both cause physical injury, but one does it merely to harm, while the other does it to treat a greater problem.

Relating back to the topic, and revealing my own Bias here:

I'd call the Thief's Action, Neutral Unaligned, mostly because no-one would know about it, therefore it can't affect his social standing.)

Chdmann: Thank you for your replies. It sounds like the intel field has changed significantly since the report I read. That's no surprise; it was from the 70s or 80s and clearly edited in response to a US FOIA inquiry and I'm willing to believe contemporary intel-gathering has evolved since then. I'm also willing to concede the sum of my knowledge on it is very, very small; I've idly read a few items available to the public, but that's what browsing Wikipedia and its linked sources/citations on a slow day at work will do for you.

I'd like to ask a little more if it's okay. Your estimate of 2m19s before the subject starts talking... we're assuming they provide accurate, actionable information as opposed to simply responding "okay okay, I'll talk" and making stuff up? I'm guessing "yes, otherwise what's the point", but have to ask as a framework for these next points.

- What sort of person are we talking about in the 2:19 estimate/average? Are these laypersons... support staff, civilians, and others who generally do not expect to come into direct conflict with another person in their typical day or week? For the sake of the question, we'll assume they have the useful information the interrogator needs and are targeted for torture to swiftly reveal it.

- If the subjects in that estimate are indeed 'softer' people (to use an admittedly odd term), how does this estimate relate to those who do work in 'conflict oriented fields' such as soldiers, meaningful security at a company, enemy combatants, etc.; people who have given at least a passing thought to interrogations. Do they give similarly useful info within roughly that same time frame? If not, does it take notably longer? Do they tend to provide bad information?

- Is this still the case even when they have specific reasons to not answer their interrogator at all or lie? For example, the information being sought will be irrelevant once X amount of time passes. These would be the 'ticking time bomb' scenarios some of us have cited...

I'll give you the basics;

Humans, (and all humanoids according to the fantasy game group I'm playing with,) share a reptilian brain structure that can only be overridden by brain damage.

A near-death experience causes adrenaline to overload the conscious mind and enhance suggestibility/induce "Entrancement".

Then repeatedly tell them about how when they try and die, you revive them, and then "You are eager to answer our questions, to relieve the pain" in a more soothing voice.

These methods are so effective, their teaching is restricted. I still can talk about them because so many refuse to believe how simple it is to override 'free will'.

There is no true free will, merely the optimal course of in/action in response to both physical and mental stimuli.

So it the person dies it's ok to torture them? If the torture is done in "international waters" then it is ok? I'm having trouble getting my head around what you mean with your double negative in that statement. So how does torture committed in places like Guantanamo Bay fit into your view of what is and what isn't torture?

International law doesn't end at a nation's maritime boundaries.

Somali pirate on trial: Well your honour, we were in international waters when we attacked that oil tanker and held the crew to ransom.

Defence lawyer: Bugger

Judge: Bugger

Shipping company: Bugger

International community: Hmm, we didn't think that one through very well did we guys.

As for "effective methods", you were talking about using physical injury. That is torture. Tying in your point about time not being a luxury, you were specifically talking about using physical injury to get quick results. There are effective methods to get information through interrogation but they tend not to be quick but they also don't breach a whole range of domestic and international law.

As for "amateurs" - the methods approved by the Bush administration did include causing physical injury. So we aren't just...

You assume that the legal system isn't a show trial?!

Don't get me started on Guantanamo Bay and Water-Boarding. The US military and their 'torture methods' are illegal, and are a red-herring.

What a better way to show the world population that "We R Winnin' da War!" then forcing someone to sign a false admission for whatever they want to pin on a prisoner? (Create a sacrificial lamb.)

What I am talking about, is it's use in Intelligence. (AKA a monitored target that we have real reason for them to have the info we need.)

Why risk the forcibly extraction, interrogation and disposal of someone who'd know nothing? An absence could alert the hierarchy.

2minutes, 19 seconds is a long time, but we are working on it.

Safe torture is something out of George Orwell's 1984. What do you categorise as safe torture? Needing plasma and adrenaline on hand in case the subject dies does not sound very safe.

Point 2: Whose reality? A Tom Clancy novel perhaps. I agree it's not my reality, because mine doesn't include torture as being acceptable in any form.

"We use" - so are you a trained interrogator or a Psych-poltiics major? Or both.

Let's use George Orwell's 1984 as a point of reference, both Newspeak and Doublethink. "Safe Torture" is indeed 'Doublethink'.

A "Psycho-Political Agent", is another name for black ops intelligence.

I will disappear, have a new forged ID, and be set to work.

Last I checked good-alignment didn't require being a pacifist, so why are so many people under the impression that it does? If good alignment required actively avoiding conflict with evil, Paladins would be screwed.

TY!

Consider me weird if you will, but I play an Unaligned Half-Orc Druid Ooze-bound.

I rarely have such ethical problems, merely the desire to consume!

So are you trying to justify the use of "take them to the brink of death" or are you just taking an abstract observational approach to the issue?

Who did this research that states 2min 19 sec is the average time? Was it an experiment in a psych lab or was it the results of real life torture/interrogation? If so who was doing it and if they were actually "forcing the subject to the brink of death through physical injury" how many laws were they breaking and how many moral boundaries were they blithely leaping over?

And this method is based on the assumption by the "interrogator" that the subject has knowledge which has only short term value, i.e. actionable intelligence? If the guy doesn't actually know what you think he knows then all the sadism in the world isn't going to get you useful intelligence. Progressively building up a relationship with the subject is going to yield much better long term results.

If you want to read up on historical application of effective interrogation then read up on some of the WW2 German interrogators dealing with allied pilots rather than some heavily edited US government document that is more about pretending that what was done was not torture than anything else.

The Research was done as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The methods are only against UN conventions if they aren't done in international waters and a subject survives to tell of it.

Please actually read my posts, I have said that the methods really used don't fit in an Idyllic world-view (Paladins are either repulsed by this discussion, or them using this is the 'Knight Templar' trope.)

The 'torture' incidents that the Media report are done by armature Jar-heads and Guards, I am however, talking about effective methods.

You say "Progressively building up a relationship with the subject is going to yield much better long term results" True, but time is a luxury that can rarely be afforded.

Chdmann wrote:

1st time poster, but as a Psycho-politics Major, I can answer this;

The research actually indicates that an effective way of torture is quickly escalating the pain. Ask your question, and if they don't start automatically talking, use increased force.

You can't think up a lie when you are being tortured. The CIA mess up because of the delays in setting up 'safe' torture apparatus, time which a captive can use to create a 'believable' lie.

So are you saying the CIA messed up because they didn't start the torture quickly enough? And what do you mean by "safe torture apparatus"? Safe in the sense of the victim not being hurt, not being permanently hurt or that the torturers themselves were "safe" from legal sanction for committing what is illegal under a whole range of national and international legal conventions?

The "mess up" was the use of torture irrespective of how quickly they got around to doing what they did. Using terms like coercive questioning and other linguistic gymnastics to try and make what you're doing not be classed as "torture" doesn't hide the fact that torture was being used.

Resistance to interrogation training includes coming up with a cover story to protect/hide/obfuscate the truth. So increased pain does not automatically mean you will not lie - there are many shades of truth and falsehood.

But getting back to the OP, the torture was evil. Who cares whether it was NE, CE or LE. If he could escape without killing the guards then killing them was particularly evil. How did he know they were all evil? Perhaps some were coerced or threatened into becoming guards. If he was skilled enough to disarm a fire trap and then McGyver it to work as some kind of grenade then he is probably skilled enough to get out of the prison without needing to cause additional mayhem.

I've never seen the attraction in playing evil characters. Do people get their kicks out of being cruel and vicious? Admittedly the few players I've seen try and play an evil character...

Gallo, I never meant to Trivialize the matter, but I will answer all your questions:

1. Yes, the CIA messed up because they delay the torture because of all the set-up required for "safe torture". ("Safe Torture" covers all the above.)

2. Your Quote of "Resistance to interrogation training includes coming up with a cover story to protect/hide/obfuscate the truth. So increased pain does not automatically mean you will not lie - there are many shades of truth and falsehood." Is very different to the reality.

We only use Interrogation as a means to get concrete data (Whom/Where/Pretense of What).

Still, humans are fallible, which is why we do it on multiple captives.

Chdmann: I'm willing to believe you might know more than I do about it, and I would be curious as to your further thoughts. I've done some passing study in the topic myself, but the vast majority of my knowledge comes from a clearly scrubbed/edited intelligence agency's manual on interrogations... wish I could find the exact one and cite/link to it, but it was hilarious in an oddly dark way, with lengthy paragraphs on how to torture someone hastily scribbled over and the editor writing nearby in pencil, "is unethical, illegal, and must not be used." Riiight.

The manual seemed to date to around the 1970s or 80s, and included various advice such as (all paraphrased) the following, which I would be interested as to your thoughts on:

"Death threats are ineffective in interrogation because they immediately make the subject defensive and fear you'll simply kill them anyway after they answer your questions; why outlive their usefulness?" - Strikes me as plausible. Your thoughts?

"Don't make direct threats of any kind unless you are prepared to immediately back them up. If you threaten to beat them or take food away or so on, then don't do it, they will stop being afraid of you and become more set in resisting your questions." - Seems obvious; interrogator loses their 'aura of menace' if this happens. Correct?

Broadly it also seemed to assert they preferred to use softer methods in the first place, or even starting with a hostile interrogator and then quickly switching to a friendly one in the hopes of not just getting good intel, but also having a newly converted 'ally' to return to their previous location and let them subvert other enemies. It was noted this can't always be done, but is considered a highly desired outcome when it can be arranged.

The other thing I would want an opinion on is the effectiveness (not the morality, just effectiveness) of torture in the 'ticking time bomb' scenarios that have come up. What if the person just doesn't feel like talking? What if they need...

Celestial Pegasus:

No worries mate, I learned not to take life too seriously, so just feel free to call a spade a spade with me.

One of the RL perks of the degree/class I've chosen gives me access to current and experimental methods.

Modern methods contradicts the cold-war 'soft start then escalate' approach, actually state "Force the subject to the brink (of death) through physical injury." (We also tell the subject that we will revive them if they try and die on us, and we often have several bags of plasma and adrenaline injections to do it).

Average time required to break a subject: 2 minutes 19 seconds.

Seems fast enough, though I'd like to see it improved to be faster still.

A party would have to have a magic-user whom can raise a dead without healing them in order to do it, and probably someone who can deliver a a non-lethal but high Damage strike.

Umbranus wrote:

Police officer hurts bad guy, bad guy tells where little girl is. She is rescued and indeed some hours later she would have been dead.

I would never ever call the police officer evil for saving the little girl like that. He's a hero and a martyr, because he lost his job for doing it. But he is not evil.

Sometimes the goal really justifies the deeds.

I could see a case for this if torture had much history of yielding good intel. Most of the studies I've read (admittedly these are edited ones released to the public under U.S. FOIA requests, including ones where they blatantly edit it to pander to public sentiment) suggest it just causes them to lie, especially if they only need to stall for enough time for their intended goal to happen. Especially since real world interrogators generally don't have dice rolls and spells to ensure they got the truth.

It's apparently good at producing coerced 'confessions', but I'm not immediately familiar with torture producing actionable, accurate info in the short-term. Even in the long term, it's my understanding you're better off employing confidence tricks to get them to tell you what you need to know. Things like turning off the recorder and saying it's all 'off the record' (when there are other cameras around they can't see), or having one interrogator act cruel so the kindly interrogator can be the 'friend' of the person being questioned and get them to open up, etc.

Granted, in D&D one can use the Interrogation spell which is a form of torture, and has a codified bonus to help you tell when they're lying. You could even use it in conjunction with truth-determining spells to get the proper result, I imagine. It would still, in the vast majority of cases, be a notably evil act. And chances are that in 'ticking time bomb' situations, they'll just try to keep silent anyway. You'd need other spell effects to coax the truth out of them, by which time you may as well use Charm Person to help with the questioning.

1st time poster, but as a Psycho-politics Major, I can answer this;

The research actually indicates that an effective way of torture is quickly escalating the pain. Ask your question, and if they don't start automatically talking, use increased force.

You can't think up a lie when you are being tortured. The CIA mess up because of the delays in setting up 'safe' torture apparatus, time which a captive can use to create a 'believable' lie.